Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Smolley <me@rest.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:11:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <v66aja$2phnn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v64kvk$2cc3j$2@dont-email.me> <v655vt$2jju3$1@dont-email.me>
	<v65g26$2l5br$4@dont-email.me> <v65m9e$2mc0i$1@dont-email.me>
	<len6voFfsavU2@mid.individual.net> <v65rnf$2najh$3@dont-email.me>
	<v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me> <v6607n$2najh$6@dont-email.me>
	<v662kt$2oj9r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 16:11:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08a400ab58452da41eddbd275d001963";
	logging-data="2934519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZZKgCBWzKb93bcgcdoPBM"
User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; Unknown)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/rUu3F9UnuX4bRFLKR8wZ12pck4=
Bytes: 6756

On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

> On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
>>>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
>>>>> extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't even cheaper then.
>>>> Some of us have run the numbers...
>>>>
>>>> Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
>>>> but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
>>>> capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
>>>> associated with a windmill.
>>>
>>> But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
>>> storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
>>> take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.
>>>
>> It is not massive.
>> In fact its trivial.
> 
> We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and the
> late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
> spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.
> 
> https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility
> 
> We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.
> 
>> How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
>> Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?
>> 
>>>> Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make
>>>> a silk purse out of a pigs ear...
>>>
>>> It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
>>> purse.
>>>
>>> If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
>>> option.
>>>
>> Of course it is More lies
>> 
>>> "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
>>> time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month
>>> refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
>>> special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core
>>> without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual
>>> PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
>>> markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
>>> considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following
>>> mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new
>>> reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100%
>>> of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
>>> minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
>>> factor of a capital-intensive plant."
>>>
>> Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
>> best use of capital when you have any hydro.
> 
> So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will still
> most of the flaws of what we've got now?  Grow up.
> 
>> Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this
> 
> https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/
> 
> It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
> capital.
> 
> https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-in-2022/
> 
> I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.
> 
>>> Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
>>> battery storage is even more flexible.
>>>
>>> You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
>>> renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.
>> 
>> Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
>> turbines.
> 
> Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough to
> do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere
> 
> https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/
> 
> surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
> term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
> buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to grid
> when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite enough
> money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
> investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station
> 
> is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
> huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
> Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more
> predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.
> 
>> It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or wind
>> grid operational in a flat calm.
> 
> If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial
> electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate your
> way through the occasional period of flat calm.
> 
>> And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
>> costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.
> 
> Not that you can cite any such published claim.
> 
>> Consumers do instead,
> 
> More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
> Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go along.
> 
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the sun.